Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

singularityhub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 197 posts

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#121

Post by pfdietz »

constantcrying wrote: post #110
pfdietz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that it's not an argument against renewables per se. If industrial society powered by nuclear (or unicorn farts) is sustainable, it implies recycling is either unnecessary or solvable.

I think environmental impact by producing billions of pannels of landfill is actually an argument against solar. I am not against solar, by the way, but it is obviously an important consideration.

You are selective in your concern. Is industrial society as a whole ok? It will produce much more waste that needs recycling that solar/wind will. If it is ok, then why would solar/wind not be?

This smells of bad faith argumentation.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#122

Post by thx-2718 »

hef19898 wrote: post #103
thx-2718 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you say it's militarized? I mean, the command structure of Star Fleet mirrors the military, but as far I know the the mirror universe is the 'militarized' society.

The mirror universe is fascist, and sexist and racist. The normal one, well, everything is shown to be run by a military organization, Starfleet, ranging from exploration to first contact and diplomacy. Federation ambassadors are portrayed as spoiled, clueless clows. All while attributing Starfleet a clear moral superiority. And even shows like DS9, the Maquis angle hints at some moral dilema regarding the occupied c…

So I think we're operating on different interpretations of the term 'militaristic'.

Star Trek primarily depicts the Federations (of planets) Military on the frontier of their space.

The society within the Federation is generally a democratic one and the use of Star Fleet is not to invade.

"Starfleet's function was to explore unknown territory on the behalf of the Federation government, to defend the Federation and its allies from threats, to further Federation policies and interests throughout interstellar space, and, when applicable, to initiate first contact with newly-discovered worlds and to engage in diplomatic negotiations on the behalf of the Federation. "

https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Federation_Starfleet

"Unlike its traditional rivals who derive power from a single dominant species subjugating other races within the boundaries of their empire, the Federation's various Member States join willingly and are equals in the Federation's democratic society."

https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/United_Federation_of_Pla...

contrast that with:

"Militarism is the belief or the desire of a government or a people that a state should maintain a strong military capability and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values. It may also imply the glorification of the military and of the ideals of a professional military class and the "predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state (see also: stratocracy and military junta).... Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of many nations throughout history. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism

"A stratocracy is a form of government headed by military chiefs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocracy

"A military junta is a government led by a committee of military leaders. The term junta means "meeting" or "committee" and originated in the national and local junta organized by the Spanish resistance to Napoleon's invasion of Spain in 1808."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_junta

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#123

Post by pydry »

ftth_finland wrote: post #50
pydry wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civilian nuclear power help share costs with the nuclear military industrial complex (e.g. Russia, France, UK, USA) and it's useful for countries that have a clear and pressing desire to be able to develop a nuclear bomb in a hurry (Sweden, South Korea, Japan), but without those caveats there isn't much point to it which is why nobody else builds it. Its LCOE is 5x that of solar and between 1.5x-3x more expensive tha…

> but without those caveats there isn't much point to it which is why nobody else builds it. Having power and not freezing to death when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow is a pretty solid point. We just put a new nuclear power plant into service in Finland. > Its LCOE is 5x that of solar and between 1.5x-3x more expensive than solar/wind paired with just about all viable forms of green large scale stor…

>Having power and not freezing to death when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow is a pretty solid point.

Not really. Electricity usage is not actually constant and nuclear power doesn't do load following unless you double the cost again (10x solar's LCOE).

Theres a reason only France tried that - and that is strongly related to the reason why Areva went spectacularly bankrupt.

Theres no reality in which it makes any economic sense except #1 providing military support or #2 a pretend reality where all available storage options are economically infeasible.

I have to say that an ignorant #2 is a pretty anti-climate position to take.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#124

Post by _hypx »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #87
pfdietz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to hear someone else beating the hydrogen (or some e-fuel) drum for that last few percent.

I do not understand why there is not more focus on fuel synthesis. If electricity becomes “free” for hours a day, even crummy roundtrip efficiency seems like a great option to soak up extra capacity and get long term (seasonal?) storage.

You are describing e-fuels. Hydrogen from excess renewables is the same idea. The critics are simply not paying attention to the fact that green energy is nearly free and therefore fuels made from it can also be nearly free.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#125

Post by ftth_finland »

pfdietz wrote: post #99
ftth_finland wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you run fuel synthesis profitably purely on intermittent renewable power and scale up and down in real-time? Capital costs are high and utilization will be low.

The key is sufficiently cheap electrolysers. They are below $300/kW now. The other steps (if any) have higher capital cost/energy cost ratios, so they can be done when energy is more expensive.

Can you explain how the costs pencil out?

Today, in Finland, renewables produced between 0,2 GW and 1,5 GW.

Does that mean I would need $450M (1,5 GW * $300/kW) in electrolysers to soak up all that power?

For simplicity's sake, let's say output averages 1GW over 24 hours? What do I get for the day with my $450M electrolysis plant?

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#126

Post by JumpCrisscross »

thx-2718 wrote: post #122
hef19898 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mirror universe is fascist, and sexist and racist. The normal one, well, everything is shown to be run by a military organization, Starfleet, ranging from exploration to first contact and diplomacy. Federation ambassadors are portrayed as spoiled, clueless clows. All while attributing Starfleet a clear moral superiority. And even shows like DS9, the Maquis angle hints at some moral dilema regarding the occupied c…

So I think we're operating on different interpretations of the term 'militaristic'. Star Trek primarily depicts the Federations (of planets) Military on the frontier of their space. The society within the Federation is generally a democratic one and the use of Star Fleet is not to invade. "Starfleet's function was to explore unknown territory on the behalf of the Federation government, to defend the Federation and it…

> society within the Federation is generally a democratic one and the use of Star Fleet is not to invade

Militaristic != imperial. If your society's smart and ambitious aspire to join your military, you're a militaristic culture.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#127

Post by standardUser »

constantcrying wrote: post #57
standardUser wrote: post #7

I get a little frustrated that all of the people who crapped all over solar power can now simply sit there quietly as it becomes a major component of electricity generation and pay no price for spreading anti-solar propaganda at such a historically critical juncture. I always found it particularly grotesque coming from the HN crowd, where an audience of mostly engineers and entrepreneurs seemed to have no problem fin…

Are there any news in regards to recycling or operation length? Solar obviously "works" if it has the surrounding infrastructure, like storage and weather. Hopefully green energy subsidies can end soon.

Green subsidies can end when the mission is accomplished (saluting guy emoji)

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#128

Post by ftth_finland »

pydry wrote: post #123
ftth_finland wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but without those caveats there isn't much point to it which is why nobody else builds it. Having power and not freezing to death when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow is a pretty solid point. We just put a new nuclear power plant into service in Finland. > Its LCOE is 5x that of solar and between 1.5x-3x more expensive than solar/wind paired with just about all viable forms of green large scale stor…

>Having power and not freezing to death when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow is a pretty solid point. Not really. Electricity usage is not actually constant and nuclear power doesn't do load following unless you double the cost again (10x solar's LCOE). Theres a reason only France tried that - and that is strongly related to the reason why Areva went spectacularly bankrupt. Theres no reality in which…

> Not really.

Oh, really? What's your solution to producing non-polluting power when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow?

> Electricity usage is not actually constant and nuclear power doesn't do load following unless you double the cost again

Can you explain how you've come to this conclusion?

We recently turned up a new nuclear power plant in Finland and they did nothing but turn up and down the generation levels when doing tests. Looking at the graphs, I can see output has varied between 3,3 and 4,3 GW this week.

The local wikipedia article on nuclear power states that power output can be regulated 5%/min, which is faster than almost all other generation methods.

> Theres a reason only France tried that - strongly related to the reason why Areva went spectacularly bankrupt.

Are you saying that Areva went over budget because they build us a load following nuclear plant?

> Theres no reality in which it makes any economic sense except #1 providing military support or #2 a pretend reality where all available storage options dont work.

Pray do tell what those available storage options are. Give us the real skinny then, none of that FUDD.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#129

Post by ftth_finland »

pydry wrote: post #117
ftth_finland wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you run fuel synthesis profitably purely on intermittent renewable power and scale up and down in real-time? Capital costs are high and utilization will be low.

Sort of. Doing that would still be cheaper than nuclear power whose capital costs are insane . Does that count as profitable? It would be cheaper still to throw pumped storage and batteries into the mix.

> Sort of. Doing that would still be cheaper than nuclear power whose capital costs are insane. Does that count as profitable?

Yes. What do I get for $15B? How many GWh of storage and electricity generation?

> It would be cheaper still to throw pumped storage and batteries into the mix.

What pumped storate? Everybody is already about maxed out on hydro capability.

What batteries? The world is barely producing enough for EVs and other stuff, there aren't enough GWhs available for utility storage.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#130

Post by ftth_finland »

pfdietz wrote: post #106
ftth_finland wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today." https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e... How are you going to use hydrogen to generate electricity without generating CO2 and other emissions? How are you going to make e-fuel or other synthetic fuels cost effectively? Even if electricity is free, the plants aren't.

Industrial combustion turbines have been available for decades that burn hydrogen (in waste gases from various industrial processes, and also in jet engines adapted to burn hydrogen). It's just a matter of designing a combustor that works with the gas. This is known to be a solvable problem. If a particular high end gas turbine that's available today doesn't yet have a hydrogen combustor, that just means this solvabl…

How is your comment different from:

"Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today."

Post reply on HN